[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1771795539164-0.png (1.82 MB, 1600x1155, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1771795539164-1.png (1.02 MB, 720x912, ClipboardImage.png)

 

The notion of a vanguard is not a notion of a political elite, though it can decay into one, but rather it is a notion of a highly developed strata of professional revolutionaries who guide the proletariat simply because of the fact that they had better access to political education. Sometimes this is described as "the most advanced section of the proletariat" but we often find not merely highly educated and motivated proletarians in the vanguard, but also plenty of bourgeois class traitors in (Engels), class traitors from the nobility (Felix Dzerzhinsky, Zhou Enlai) peasants (Lenin, Mao), the child of a plantation owner (Castro), and petty bourgeoisie (Marx himself, at least the young Marx, before his exile and relative poverty and England).

In the 19th century and early 20th century, this vanguard naturally contained many class traitors, since political education was rarely extended to the working class. Marx had maids, even in his apartment in London, and Lenin employed housekeepers even in his exile to a cabin in Siberia. This was a group of unusually educated professional revolutionaries who did so much reading, so much writing, so much public speaking, and attended so many meetings, that they did not have time to cook their own meals, do their own laundry, wash their own dishes, and could not have done so even if they wanted to. They needed help with basic domestic tasks from the very workers they wanted to liberate.

Today it is different. The worker can listen to the entire Marxist-Leninist canon as audiobooks while attending to the menial tasks which occupy daily life, both at work and at home. The worker can publish their thoughts to a site such as this easily, without needing access to a publishing company or a printing press. A worker can attend a party meeting in the form of a video call, while driving. This enables the worker to be every bit as involved in the theoretical half of the class struggle (reading theory, writing theory, speaking publicly, attending meetings) as they already were in the practical half of the class struggle (working, striking, fighting, dying). This calls into question whether the vanguard is the individual in a suit sitting in an office publishing theses against bourgeois rivals while servants bring tea and warm meals, or whether the vanguard is the individual who listens to Marx and Lenin while washing dishes.

>>2700837
>professional revolutionaries
wtffff

This is all outdated snd dinosaur talk.
If cybernetic economic planning is good enough for modern corporations its good enough for socialism.

>>2700842
> the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries. Thus, we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionaries and the labour movement pure and simple.
Lenin, What Is To Be Done
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm

The theory exists in a sea of mindless entertainment, and the ability to post and vent has prevented the growth of actual organizations

>>2700849
This isn't thread isn't about economic planning after the revolution, it is about who qualifies to be a "professional revolutionary." Historically this qualification was reserved for people who had the time, education, and intellectual fortitude. But now we see that workers are able to educate themselves in theory even while working and attending to menial domestic tasks, which they could not do in the time of Marx and Lenin, which is why they could only set aside a certain amount of "free" time to do so exclusively at the expense of other tasks. in 1867 you could not read Capital while moving around in a kitchen. Now you can.

>>2700870
Then your task is to separate the gems from the slop

even during marx's time the idea of revolutionaries being a force external to the proletariat was fucking retarded and intellectuals and academics were already considered politically worthless and impotent to communists lol

>>2700865
>On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced.
do you people actually read the shit you post or do you just do a quick ctrl+F on a text

>>2700877
Nah, the internet is counter insurgent technology, it needs to be destroyed and removed from the equation

File: 1771797222659.jpg (198.02 KB, 739x1024, child workers.jpg)

>>2700880
>even during marx's time the idea of revolutionaries being a force external to the proletariat was fucking retarded and intellectuals and academics were already considered politically worthless and impotent to communists lol
it's very easy to SAY this over and over again like a rote dogma, but we obviously see in practice that the stable boy who got kicked in the head by the horse and the half-dead man in his 30s who spent his entire youth breathing coal dust in a mine is less likely to be in the "vanguard" than a man in a suit who writes theoretical works like Capital and State And Revolution.

You can quote Marx and Engels declaring but the injured, crippled, illiterate, starved workers must be the true vanguard, but we see in practice that the vanguard consisted of people like Marx and Lenin. The analysis I gave is that the conditions of the working class have changed, at least in the imperial core, due to both technology and regulations, that a person who spends all day working has more tools at their disposal for absorbing structured revolutionary information than they did in the 1860s-1910s. Now the workers won't merely be the ones fighting and dying in trenches, or getting beaten by police outside the factory, but literally leading their own struggle on a theoretical level. It is no longer up to a suit-wearing vanguard who had access to political education. That was historically necessary at one point (even though that very suit wearing vanguard sometimes wished otherwise out loud, as in your quoted text) but it no longer is. The Lenins of today will be the workers. It will not be the man in a suit who wrote thousands of pages by hand at a desk. The workers will have a theoretically coherent and non vulgarized understanding, and more importantly they will be able to develop that understanding while working, so it won't be limited to the lucky ones who have enough free time.

>>2700882
ok then stop talking online and start blowing up servers (you won't)

>>2700895
Workers have far more to lose today, namely all the technology that allows the education you go off about that belongs to the bourgeois and can be shut off at any time

>>2700837
There will never be a vanguard party as long as the proletariat is successfully kept in tow to bourgeois movements and their ideologies. In fact, abandoning criticism of these movements is to abandon the very possibility of proletarian independence.

By the way, you realise that the communist party *is* the vanguard, right?

>>2700895
To consider a proletarian a communist they only need to engage in class struggle themselves, to consider a bourgeois communist they instead need to scientifically study the class struggle. But considering you include figures like Mao or Castro (the latter who wasn't even a marxist until he needed to pretend to get access to gibs from the USSR), I doubt you know what you're talking about anyway.

File: 1771797796481.jpg (276.67 KB, 1024x807, 1461755076843.jpg)

>>2700898
>To consider a proletarian a communist they only need to engage in class struggle themselves, to consider a bourgeois communist they instead need to scientifically study the class struggle.
we aren't talking about what makes someone a communist but what makes someone the "vanguard" which is sometimes called the most advanced section of the proletariat, but history shows that this vanguard contains highly educated people with more free time than the workers. What has changed since then is that the worker can become just as theoretically educated as the vanguard of the 1860s-1910s even without having as much free time. This is due to technological and legal changes which allows the worker, at least in the imperial core, to absorb revolutionary information even while working and performing menial tasks.

>>2700903
The bourgeois allow Lenin and Mao essays to stay up on the internet because they were never subversive in the first place

>>2700905
the goal isn't to be "subversive" in and of itself. if it were the most "Rrrrrrrrevolutionary" person would be the poltards spamming slurs/gore/CP

>>2700928
Mao and Lenin were fake opposition that capitalism used to paper over its own contradictions

>>2700880
>even during marx's time the idea of revolutionaries being a force external to the proletariat was fucking retarded and intellectuals and academics were already considered politically worthless and impotent to communists lol
If thats the case why hasn't a pure proletarian revolution happened? The closest was russia and it had a vanguard so…

>>2700837
Vanguards are revolutionary parties made up of a select number of dedicated revolutionaires, they are specifically made to be a collective, so I'd disagree.

File: 1771810777080.png (247.15 KB, 514x536, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2700929
are you the same anon in the other thread who said all these exact same things and then concluded that we need to bring back roman slavery?


>>2701160
There’s not gonna be an alternative when nukes fly and the entire population of the global south is forced northward and oil runs out

>>2700837
Marx and Engels were never the vanguard, and as far as Lenin and the other key figures of the RSDLP who lived in exile, they were not even close to the whole vanguard. The real vanguard was sleeping on the floor of poor workers' homes while organizing study circles among factory workers. They were smuggling literature, setting up clandestine printing presses piece by piece, forging documents to get comrades across state lines or out of prison, etc. I agree broadly though that in the modern day we don't need saviors from a higher class, since literacy is widespread. Just from the more educated, literate, and politically lucky among the working class. All of the past revolutions can be thought of as nationalist first and communist second. The only one that doesn't fit this mold so well is the Russian revolution, but if you look from the point of view of the soldiers calling for peace before they're wiped out and peace is settled by terms set by Germany, and the bourgeoisie was calling for Germany to come save them from revolution, and even the bourgeoisie were attempting to kill the bourgeois revolution and were against a republic, it makes more sense that while the previously small and relatively junior bolsheviks did take the reins of the situation, the people who gave them their power, the soldiers, peasants, and workers, were not communist first.

>>2700882
The coming communist sneakernet will be glorious and unstoppable

>>2700895
The guy who got kicked in the head by a horse is the vanguard if he picks up a gun. You're conflating the ideological leadership with the vanguard as a whole.

>" Specifically, I wholly agree with you that special stress should be laid on the tasks connected with the work on an all-Russian scale and with the work of the Party as a whole; in your draft this is expressed in Clause One, which reads: “The newspaper Iskra, which has permanent correspondents among the workers and close contact with the work within the organisation, is the leading centre of the Party (and not only of a committee or a district).” I should merely like to remark that the newspaper can and should be the ideological leader of the Party, evolving theoretical truths, tactical principles, general organisational ideas, and the general tasks of the whole Party at any given moment. But only a special central group (let us call it the Central Committee, say) can be the direct practical leader of the movement, maintaining personal connections with all the committees, embracing all the best revolutionary forces among the Russian Social-Democrats, and managing all the general affairs of the Party, such as the distribution of literature, the issuing of leaflets, the allocation of forces, the appointment of individuals and groups to take charge of special undertakings, the preparation of demonstrations and an uprising on an all-Russian scale, etc. Since the strictest secrecy of organisation and preservation of continuity of the movement is essential, our Party can and should have two leading centres: a C.O. (Central Organ) and a C. C. (Central Committee). The former should be responsible for ideological leader ship, and the latter—for direct and practical leadership. Unity of action and the necessary solidarity between these groups should be ensured, not only by a single Party programme, but also by the composition of the two groups (both groups, the C.O. and the C.C., should be made up of people who are in complete harmony with one another), and by the institution of regular and systematic joint conferences. Only then will the C.O., on the one hand, be placed beyond the reach of the Russian gendarmes and assured of consistency and continuity, while, on the other hand, the C.C. will always be at one with the C.O. on all essential matters and have sufficient freedom to take direct charge of all the practical aspects of the movement."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/00.htm

Central Organ vs Central Committe vs Party/vanguard

Genuinely this document holds the keys to organizing. A separate ideological leadership is necessary; organizational leadership is vulnerable but ideological leadership can be 'airgapped'. And as far as organizations go, "organisation should be as secret internally as “ramified” externally, i.e., in its outward relationships, it should stretch its feelers as far and in as many directions as any revolutionary organisation". fuck witbd for not being clear enough

This plus mass line, the theory of workplace mapping, applied to society as a whole, which is essentially the process of social investigation, and the formation of a people's militia, is the organizational form, tactical methods, and concrete activity of any successful future communist organization

>>2701393
communism isnt an ideology

>All of the past revolutions can be thought of as nationalist first and communist second

lol yeah i "can" also "think of" things as something entirely different, wouldnt change the actual reality of it though

>The only one that doesn't fit this mold so well is the Russian revolution

oh you mean the only one that led to an actual DOTP? interesting!


Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]